Supreme Court justices voice skepticism of voting rights law

Comments

@my2cents "Arbitrary supreme court and its decisions cannot repeal a
law or its enforcement. "

actually that is exactly their role if
they determine a law violates the constitution . You are however right that if
congress decides to overrule the supreme court they can go through the process
of amending the constitution.

GeorgeBronx, NY

Feb. 28, 2013 10:12 a.m.

do you understand how our government works? what exactly do you think the role
of the judiciary is as one of the three branched of government. hint they are
not just a simple rubber stamp enforcement arm.

m.g. scottLAYTON, UT

Feb. 28, 2013 9:31 a.m.

Judges have been making law from the bench now for decades. They claim they are
interpreting law, but when the interpretation goes to the point of creating
rights that clearly are not in the constitution, it is just as much law making
as anything the legislators do. Only problem is, we can boot out the
legislators at the next election, not so with lifetime judges. The judiciary
has acquired too much power. The idea of blind justice has long ago gone by the
wayside. Anytime you hear the term liberal or conservative judges, you know
that judges are just as much politicians as any elected official.

My2CentsTaylorsville, UT

Feb. 28, 2013 4:50 a.m.

Judges have no authority to write laws nor is their decisions approve of or deny
a law. Only the legislator can write or change the laws. Decisions are opinions,
not fact of law. As long as the law remains unchanged its still the law and the
Judges cannot alter that fact.

The judges do now work for the
president or the legislaors nor do they all hve the same powers. Arbitrary
supreme court and its decisions cannot repeal a law or its enforcement. The
congress still has the power to deny Supreme court decisions as is their
constitutional right. The congress is the only branch of governemnt that can
affect changes in the constitution and overturn supreme court rulings that
affect law enforcment.

Law that legalize discrimination are
unconstitutional and all civil laws are written as non discrimination and the
argument that discrimination is being used to enforce the laws are not the
jurisdiction of Supreme Court actions. Many discrimination accusation against
law enforcement violation are in the jurisdiciton of the DOJ to investigate
those enforcing the law and their behavior. Most of the time any decisions by
the Supermen Court are discriminatory with any decision it makes.

WHAT NOW?Saint George, UT

Feb. 27, 2013 8:39 p.m.

When the writer refers to male members of the court, he refers to them by their
title.

"...Justice Antonin Scalia...".

"...Justice Anthony Kennedy...".

When the writer of this
piece refers to two female Justices, he refers to them as...

"...Obama appointees Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor...".

Why not be consistent?

Why not reference who appointed scalia or
Kennedy?

The writer refers to Justice Kagan "...chim(ing)
in...".

Why not use a similar dismissive adjective to describe
the opinion of scalia?

"...The bulk of the discussion concerned
Congress' actions in 2006, when overwhelming majorities in the
Republican-led Congress approved and President George W. Bush signed a 25-year
extension of the prior-approval measure, which was first adopted in the Voting
Rights Act of 1965...".

conservative activist over-reaching
supreme court judges are now going to overturn an Act which has overwhelming
support of Congress.

"...scalia said he worries that the
provision will never fade away because members of Congress would be reluctant to
risk a vote against it. "It's a concern that this is not the kind of a
question you can leave to Congress,"...".

It's clearly
not the kind of question you leave to doctrinaire supreme court judges.